ACK: [PATCH] acpi: fadt: ACPI 6.2 explicitly states 64-bit supersedes 32-bit

[ivanhu]

On 10/06/2017 01:29 PM, Alex Hung wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung at canonical.com>
> ---
>   src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c | 33 ++-------------------------------
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c
> index 477d100..bef9b2b 100644
> --- a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c
> +++ b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c
> @@ -948,13 +948,9 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_pm1a_evt_blk(fwts_framework *fw)
>   			    "FADT required PM1A_EVT_BLK field is non-zero");
>   	}
>   
> -	if (fadt->pm1a_evt_blk != 0 && fadt->x_pm1a_evt_blk.address != 0) {
> +	if (fadt->pm1a_evt_blk != 0 && fadt->x_pm1a_evt_blk.address != 0)
>   		both_nonzero = true;
> -		fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM,
> -			    "FADTPm1aEvtBlkBothtSet",
> -			    "FADT PM1A_EVT_BLK has both a 32-bit and a "
> -			    "64-bit address set; only one should be used.");
> -	} else {
> +	else {
>   		both_nonzero = false;
>   		if (!both_zero)
>   			fwts_passed(fw,
> @@ -1005,11 +1001,6 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_pm1b_evt_blk(fwts_framework *fw)
>   		fwts_passed(fw,
>   			    "FADT only one of the 32-bit or 64-bit "
>   			    "PM1B_EVT_BLK fields is being used.");
> -	else
> -		fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM,
> -			    "FADTPm1bEvtBlkOnlyOneField",
> -			    "FADT PM1B_EVT_BLK field has both the 32-bit "
> -			    "and the 64-bit field set.");
>   
>   	if ((uint64_t)fadt->pm1b_evt_blk == fadt->x_pm1b_evt_blk.address) {
>   		fwts_passed(fw,
> @@ -1065,11 +1056,6 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_pm1a_cnt_blk(fwts_framework *fw)
>   		fwts_passed(fw,
>   			    "FADT only one of the 32-bit or 64-bit "
>   			    "PM1A_CNT_BLK fields is being used.");
> -	else
> -		fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM,
> -			    "FADTPm1aCntBlkOnlyOneField",
> -			    "FADT PM1A_CNT_BLK field has both the 32-bit "
> -			    "and the 64-bit field set.");
>   
>   	if ((uint64_t)fadt->pm1a_cnt_blk == fadt->x_pm1a_cnt_blk.address) {
>   		fwts_passed(fw,
> @@ -1111,11 +1097,6 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_pm1b_cnt_blk(fwts_framework *fw)
>   		fwts_passed(fw,
>   			    "FADT only one of the 32-bit or 64-bit "
>   			    "PM1B_CNT_BLK fields is being used.");
> -	else
> -		fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM,
> -			    "FADTPm1bCntBlkOnlyOneField",
> -			    "FADT PM1B_CNT_BLK field has both the 32-bit "
> -			    "and the 64-bit field set.");
>   
>   	if ((uint64_t)fadt->pm1b_cnt_blk == fadt->x_pm1b_cnt_blk.address) {
>   		fwts_passed(fw,
> @@ -1157,11 +1138,6 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_pm2_cnt_blk(fwts_framework *fw)
>   		fwts_passed(fw,
>   			    "FADT only one of the 32-bit or 64-bit "
>   			    "PM2_CNT_BLK fields is being used.");
> -	else
> -		fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM,
> -			    "FADTPm2CntBlkOnlyOneField",
> -			    "FADT PM2_CNT_BLK field has both the 32-bit "
> -			    "and the 64-bit field set.");
>   
>   	if ((uint64_t)fadt->pm2_cnt_blk == fadt->x_pm2_cnt_blk.address) {
>   		fwts_passed(fw,
> @@ -1203,11 +1179,6 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_pm_tmr_blk(fwts_framework *fw)
>   		fwts_passed(fw,
>   			    "FADT only one of the 32-bit or 64-bit "
>   			    "PM_TMR_BLK fields is being used.");
> -	else
> -		fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM,
> -			    "FADTPm2CntBlkOnlyOneField",
> -			    "FADT PM_TMR_BLK field has both the 32-bit "
> -			    "and the 64-bit field set.");
>   
>   	if ((uint64_t)fadt->pm_tmr_blk == fadt->x_pm_tmr_blk.address) {
>   		fwts_passed(fw,
> 

Acked-by: Ivan Hu <ivan.hu at canonical.com>